Today marks the end of what is surely one of the worst terms in #SCOTUS history. Guns and prayer and abortion got most of the attention. But that's not all the Court did. Here are just some of the Court's bad decisions:
1/25
Rivas-Villegas -- SCOTUS reversed the lower court to give a cop qualified immunity for using excessive force
2/25
Tahlequah v. Bond -- SCOTUS reversed the lower court to give a cop qualified immunity for killing a man
3/25
Shoop v. Twyford -- SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief
4/25
Brown v. Davenport -- SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief
5/25
Shinn v. Ramirez -- SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief
6/25
Zubaydah -- SCOTUS allowed the Govt to withhold information about torture on CIA black sites
7/25
Vaello-Madero -- SCOTUS denied SS benefits to residents of Puerto Rico
8/25
Cummings -- SCOTUS disallowed recovery for emotional-distress damages in civil rights lawsuits
9/25
Patel -- SCOTUS stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review fact issues in immigration proceedings
10/25
Biden v. Missouri -- SCOTUS blocked a federal vaccine mandate
11/25
Garland v. Gonzalez -- SCOTUS denied long-detained immigrants' access to a bond hearing
12/25
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez -- SCOTUS denied long-detained immigrants' access to a bond hearing
13/25
FEC v. Ted Cruz -- SCOTUS struck down campaign finance restrictions to enable Ted Cruz to pay himself back for loans he made to his own campaign
14/25
Egbert v. Boule -- SCOTUS further limited a person's ability to sue federal officers (Bivens actions)
15/25
Vega v. Tekah -- SCOTUS weakened enforcement of Miranda rights
16/25
Carson v. Makin -- SCOTUS undermined the Establishment Clause, forcing states to fund private religious schools
17/25
Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. -- SCOTUS undermined the Establishment Clause, allowing football coach to have public/publicized Christian prayers at football games
18/25
Denezpi -- SCOTUS recognized tribal sovereignty just enough to allow an Indian defendant to be prosecuted twice for the same crime (no double jeopardy), then...
19/25
Castro-Huerta -- SCOTUS undermined tribal sovereignty by making tribal land "part of state" and allowing state to exercise jurisdiction on tribal land
20/25
Bruen -- SCOTUS struck down NY's 100yo restriction on concealed carry to expand 2A and limit gun restrictions
21/25
U.S. v. Texas -- SCOTUS allowed Texas's "bounty hunter" antiabortion law to go into effect
22/25
Dobbs -- SCOTUS overruled Roe & Casey, eliminating the federal right to abortion and enabling severe (life-threatening) restrictions on abortion to go into effect
23/25
West Virginia v. EPA -- SCOTUS undermined the EPA's ability to regulate emissions and fight global warming
24/25
And it must be noted that this isn't everything. SCOTUS also did things on the shadow docket -- like allow Louisiana's racial gerrymander to stay in effect for the 2022 election, etc.

Just a terrible, terrible, terrible term.
25/25
Going to go ahead and add onto this thread that there were a handful of positive decisions. They were mostly minor -- but (thankfully) there were a couple big wins.
1/14
Hemphill -- SCOTUS strengthened the 6A right to confront witnesses
2/14
Thompson v. Clark -- SCOTUS made it slightly easier to pursue a claim for malicious prosecution
3/14
Ramirez v. Collier -- SCOTUS protected the religious rights of a death-row inmate
4/14
Taylor -- SCOTUS declined to enhance the punishment for certain crimes
5/14
Concepcion -- SCOTUS gave district courts more discretion to reduce criminal sentences
6/14
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo -- SCOTUS prevented Texas from trying to regulate gaming on tribal land
7/14
Morgan v. Sundance -- SCOTUS prevented courts from making up procedural rules that favor arbitration
8/14
Golan v. Saada -- SCOTUS gave district courts more discretion to resolve international child-custody disputes
9/14
Saxon -- SCOTUS ruled in favor of certain workers trying to avoid arbitration
10/14
Kemp -- SCOTUS broadened a procedural mechanism for challenging erroneous judgments
11/14
Nance v. Ward -- SCOTUS recognized a procedural mechanism for challenging method of execution
12/14
Biden v. Texas -- SCOTUS ruled that the Biden Admin could rescind the Trump Admin's "remain in Mexico" asylum policy
13/14
Torres -- SCOTUS allowed veterans to sue state-agency employers (denied the state's sovereign immunity)
14/14

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jason P. Steed

Jason P. Steed Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @5thCircAppeals

Sep 2, 2021
Lots of people responding to my tweets about the TX abortion law, and particularly my tweets about standing, saying "Yeah but TX applies same standard as Art III so how can plaintiffs have standing under TransUnion?" So here's my thread on standing in TX:
1. Yes, TX courts have incorporated Art III standing doctrine from fed courts and have basically the same requirements for standing; there's a good argument that the logic of TransUnion applies in TX courts, and the TX abortion law cannot create standing for random plaintiffs.
2. BUT it never made sense to incorporate Art III standing doctrine in the first place. Unlike fed courts, which have limited jurisdiction (and are presumed to NOT have jurisdiction unless established), TX dist courts have "general jurisdiction."
Read 9 tweets
Sep 1, 2021
I read 171.207 of the TX statute as another attempt to innoculate against constitutional objections; 207 says the law cannot be enforced by any government actor -- only by private citizens in civil suit. Presumably, the idea is: no govt enforcement = no constitutional protection.
Also, 171.208 creates civil action against "any person" without limiting it to persons in TX -- so a friend/relative who lives in NY, who sends $ to help person in TX, can be sued in TX (assuming TX court will find sufficient "contacts" for personal jurisdiction).
208 also creates "strict liability" for anyone aiding or abetting an abortion -- intent is not required and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Only affirmative proof of "reasonable belief" that Dr performing abortion would comply with the TX law is defense.
Read 10 tweets
Oct 28, 2020
I think NG & ACB are qualified for SCOTUS and in different circumstances I would've had no problem with their confirmations. (Presidents get to appoint judges.) 1/
My problem with NG's confirmation was the blockade of Garland. It had nothing to do with NG personally and everything to do with what the GOP had done to steal that seat from Obama. I might disagree with him, but I have nothing against NG. 2/
My problem with ACB's confirmation was the GOP's rank hypocrisy after Garland -- and the fact that she was nominated by an *impeached* president and confirmed *during* the election. Again, my opposition had nothing to do with ACB personally and everything to do with the GOP. 3/
Read 5 tweets
Feb 28, 2019
I got hired a few weeks ago to handle a really crazy appellate-procedure problem, and now that our motion has been filed (it's public) I gotta thread it out here for #AppellateTwitter. Here's what happened: 1/
Client lost ton of money. Client and Co-Plaintiff file suit; Defendants file counterclaims. Four-week trial. Client loses on claims and counterclaims but Co-Plaintiff wins on everything except amount desired in attorney fees. 2/
Client and Co-Plaintiff file separate NOAs because interests are different; Client appealing entire judgment, Co-Plaintiff appealing only amount of fees awarded. Co-Plaintiff requests partial reporter's record (RR) but Client discovers complete RR will cost $20k. 3/
Read 16 tweets
Sep 12, 2017
Imagine you live in rural Texas. Tiny town, 4 hours from everywhere. And you want to get married. (Congrats!) 1/
Now imagine that your tiny town has 1 bakery. The tiny town can't support more than 1. The nearest competitor is 4 hrs away. 2/
Now imagine that everyone is old-school religious, including the baker. Including you! And it's tiny town, so everyone knows each other. 3/
Read 30 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(